lol I don't think so. Have you seen Requiem For A Dream and The Wrestler?

From a marketing standpoint, where they try to target the 18-25 year-olds (which is how I'm defining young adult), mentioning Emma Watson in the trailer is a ploy directed right at that audience._________________"But it was so artistically done."

“No. I am Ganner. This threshold is mine. I claim it for my own. Bring on your thousands, one at a time or all in a rush. I don’t give a damn. None shall pass.”

"Shaken, not stirred, will get you cold water with a dash of gin and dry vermouth. The reason you stir it with a special spoon is so not to chip the ice. James is ordering a weak martini and being snooty about it."

Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2013 11:09 pm

Message

Dog-Poop_WalkerMaster

Joined: 28 Jan 2012Posts: 1080Location: Of Puppets

Based on that literal definition of young adult, sure. As C. said, Black Swan would also fall into that group. The movies that I mentioned I think skew toward an older audience, in particular The Wrestler which was starring a middle aged cast. Requiem just contained graphic material and themes that put it into a hard R, or even NC17 rating for the uncut version. The director's other films Pi and The Fountain were not graphic, but were also R rated and dealt with mature themes and starred an older adult and middle aged cast.

Typically when referring to Young Adult in literature they are talking about material geared toward highschool aged people and the films seldom rate above a PG13. In particular books/films like Harry Potter, Twilight and The Hunger Games._________________The absurd man thus catches sight of a burning and frigid, transparent and limited universe in which nothing is possible but everything is given, and beyond which all is collapse and nothingness. He can then decide to accept such a universe and draw from it his strength, his refusal to hope, and the unyielding evidence of a life without consolation.

Posted: Wed Dec 04, 2013 1:10 pm

Message

CerrineaMaster

Joined: 09 Jun 2009Posts: 1491

Dog-Poop_Walker wrote:

Typically when referring to Young Adult in literature they are talking about material geared toward highschool aged people and the films seldom rate above a PG13. In particular books/films like Harry Potter, Twilight and The Hunger Games.

I would say YA Lit. goes even lower than high school age down to middle school. HP was classified as Children's although I think starting with Goblet of Fire, the books trended up to the YA level.

@Grandmaster -- I also think by saying they're using Emma Watson to draw in the YA crowd, it's like saying she has to confine herself and isn't allowed to grow as an actress or allowed to be in movies that are adult in content/message._________________Roqoo Depot co-founder.

Posted: Wed Dec 04, 2013 5:06 pm

Message

GrandMasterMaster

Joined: 26 Aug 2011Posts: 584Location: Earth Jedi Temple

Cerrinea wrote:

@Grandmaster -- I also think by saying they're using Emma Watson to draw in the YA crowd, it's like saying she has to confine herself and isn't allowed to grow as an actress or allowed to be in movies that are adult in content/message.

I don't think she has to confine herself at all - I just think that the marketing people want to keep using her to draw Harry Potter fans, in the same way that, say, Nathan Fillion is used to draw Firefly fans. I definitely want her to do movies with more adult content, but for now at least, the people making movie trailers and posters are going to push her more to the forefront in order to maximize sales._________________"But it was so artistically done."

“No. I am Ganner. This threshold is mine. I claim it for my own. Bring on your thousands, one at a time or all in a rush. I don’t give a damn. None shall pass.”

"Shaken, not stirred, will get you cold water with a dash of gin and dry vermouth. The reason you stir it with a special spoon is so not to chip the ice. James is ordering a weak martini and being snooty about it."

Posted: Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:30 pm

Message

ReepicheepMaster

Joined: 05 Feb 2008Posts: 6957Location: Sailing into the unknown

I just got back from Catching Fire!

I don't know if I've ever seen a more literal adaptation, even down to the dialogue. I really have no complaints from an adaptation, other than Johanna's antagonism towards Katniss being toned down. Really good movie and great adaptation. Jennifer Lawrence was amazing as always. The last scene with Cinna broke my heart though. I was worried about Francis Lawrence, but I had nothing to worry about out and I'm excited to see what he'll do with Mockingjay.

I seem to be in the minority here, but I think I still like the first movie better. I liked how it felt more personal and relatively small-scale. I didn't expect Catching Fire to follow suit since the book does the whole "bigger and better" thing. Spectacle is an important idea in these stories after all and I understand that. It's just a personal preference. I also missed the film techniques Gary Ross used like the sound design (e.g. ears ringing, roaring audience) and, yes, the shaky cam.

After these movies nailing the story as they did, I almost feel ready to forget about the books (which is an odd statement coming from me!). The movies have all that is best about the books, some extra good stuff the books didn't have, and don't have the unnecessary stuff, awkward writing etc. We'll see what they do with Mockingjay._________________
Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.

Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2013 7:43 pm

Message

Alan Skywalker VMaster

Joined: 10 Apr 2011Posts: 621

Double piece of news concerning both Disney and Paramount:

Jerry Bruckheimer is moving to Paramount, and a deal has been reached between Paramount and Disney to allow the Mouse to release any future Indiana Jones films.

Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:37 am

Message

Darth SkuldrenModerator

Joined: 04 Feb 2008Posts: 6580Location: Missouri

So I watched a trailer for Jurassic Park 4 which turned out to be a fake, but they used clips from a movie called The Hunter, so I decided to watch it. Turns out, it was really good.

It stars Willem Dafoe and features Sam Niell. Dafoe is a hunter who isn't afraid to go outside the boundaries of the law. He takes a job to hunt down and kill what might be the last of the Tasmanian Tigers in order to get complete DNA samples for some research company. So he heads to Tasmania and begins his hunt.

The story, however, takes some interesting turns. At first it's kind of a funny look at him having a really bad day. The location he gets sent to in Tasmania presents difficulties. The house he stays at has no working electricity. The locals are unfriendly to outsiders. And then there are the people who live in the house he's staying at. It's a widow and two kids. The kids are spunky and follow him around.

The acting and the characters in the film are superb. There are some beautiful shots of the forests and landscapes. The film does a lot to invoke the scenery of the location. It's a tale of an introspective man with questionable morals who finds himself alone out in the wilds of Tasmania as he hunts for something that might not even exists. He runs into troubles, and after every 12 days, he heads back to the house for supplies and deals with the kids and the widow. As time passes, he begins to adapt to the situation. He begins to like the family. He begins to questions what he's doing.

It's a rather emotional story and very well done. I highly recommend checking it out._________________
"I believe toys resonate with us as humans, we can hold them them, it's tactile, real! They are totems for our extended beliefs and imaginations. A fetish for ideas that hold as much interest and passion as old religious relics for some. We display them in our homes. They show who we are. They are signals for similar thinking people. A way we connect with each other...and I guess thats why I do toys. That connection." -Ashley Wood

Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 11:40 am

Message

Alan Skywalker VMaster

Joined: 10 Apr 2011Posts: 621

Recently watched Rise of the Guardians and Battleship. The former was great.

The latter ... not so much. I didn't even bother to finish it, and it's very rare that I don't watch movies all the way through.

Warning: mini rant follows.

How in the world could Alex Hopper have gotten into the Navy when he was already 26 and had been arrested to boot, make Leiutenant by the time he was 33 and still having discipline issues, and then be promoted to Lt. Commander at the end of the film (though, if you look carefully at his shoulder boards when he walks up to recieve Stone's Navy Cross, the boards show the insignia of a full Lt., not a Lt. Commander)?

For that matter, Stone Hopper, if I'm not mistaken, shouldn't have been the CO of a destroyer, but rather an XO, considering his rank. I feel the film was either poorly researched when it came to how the US Navy actually functions, or else the writers and director deliberately ignored that in favor of plot. I know other military films have done stuff like this, but Battleship seems to be the worst.

Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 12:51 pm

Message

CerrineaMaster

Joined: 09 Jun 2009Posts: 1491

I thought Battleship was a fun piece of fluff, and I enjoyed it. Also Liam Neeson. Since the Navy doesn't actually fight aliens, I'm not too fussed about any other wrong details that really didn't make any difference to a fluff, brain candy movie.

Now if it's an actual real history movie involving the Navy, I'd probably be annoyed at stuff that should be correct but isn't._________________Roqoo Depot co-founder.

Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 3:20 pm

Message

GrandMasterMaster

Joined: 26 Aug 2011Posts: 584Location: Earth Jedi Temple

I saw The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug at midnight on Friday. It was a pretty good movie, though book purists beware - certain liberties are taken with the story, but I liked them. This one was much better paced than the first one, so while it is still 2 and 1/2 hours, it doesn't feel very long._________________"But it was so artistically done."

“No. I am Ganner. This threshold is mine. I claim it for my own. Bring on your thousands, one at a time or all in a rush. I don’t give a damn. None shall pass.”

"Shaken, not stirred, will get you cold water with a dash of gin and dry vermouth. The reason you stir it with a special spoon is so not to chip the ice. James is ordering a weak martini and being snooty about it."

Ah, we've reached time to discuss the new film. Very well then, here I go...

WARNING! This will contain spoilers for not only this film, but the next one due to the fact that I read the book. If you haven't beware, I'm going to reveal several things to lend context to my views on parts of this film.

Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)

Torn is the right word for this one because its basically the only way I can feel about this one.

The plus sides are numerous compared to the sluggish first installment with the action much more heavy in this film, and even though this will garner hate from a lot of purists its a good thing that this one is faster. Its more exciting, its more interesting, and it abandoned some instances of really bad CGI that the first film leaned on so heavily.

Let's discuss Smaug. First off he looks incredible and is possibly the best dragon existing on film, and he gets to show off a lot. Was I fond of the expanded scenes? Eh, not really. They looked incredible but they felt silly and unnecessary, it took a lot for me to think that he'd abandon trying to kill the dwarves after that fight (and after they'd exhausted their options) and instead burn a town when he could have both, and from their position they can't see him burn the city so I don't buy that either. His discussion with Bilbo initially remains amazing though, much like the 'Riddles in the Dark' sequence from last film.

Now...ugh...let's discuss Tauriel and the shoehorned-in love triangle that they felt the need to include. On this subject let us begin with Orlando Bloom. We get it, he's man-pretty, but his inclusion feels forced and its made worse by the fact that the inclusion of Gimli would have made more sense, or even Aragorn with his friendship with Gandalf. Either of them would have added more to the plot than the love-stricken Legolas chasing orcs to save a woman who is torn between both him and a dwarf that she found taller and more insightful than she thought the species was capable of. Tauriel herself isn't a wooden character, but she knows she's forced in. You can tell that even the writers weren't sure on this one but they tried anyway. We get that you have to feel for these dwarves, they don't have super distinct personalities outside of 3 or so and then 'the fat one' that get more time so making Kili emotionally standout is a decent idea, but forcing a romance with a character who is loved by a previous character feels like wearing a fedora on top of your beanie...its simply too much and not necessary to the point of looking silly sometimes. I didn't care for it and it just doesn't work for me.

The Necromancer subplot is ok, but it needs some work. Azog is now part of Sauron's forces, lending meaning to his plot, but he still feels like he's stealing thunder from both the Necromancer/White Council plot and the main story so all I'll say is that this better have a point. Necromancer itself is interesting and they're being polite about including it, but I feel that this will steal thunder from the Battle of the 5 Armies next film and if we jam 2 big battles into one movie we may get worn out by them (they won't top the final battle in Return of the King, trying to put both battles together next film could result in a cluster****). Overall I'm interested in this plot but won't be able to care about it till I see the final result.

This is very much a middle film. Parts of it work and parts of it don't, but I don't think that we need to judge too harshly till we can watch all 3 films at once instead of waiting for a year between viewings. I'll say I enjoyed this one for the most part but its basically fan fiction at this point due to being stretched to 3 films. Jackson has made clear that it is more important to do whatever it takes to get that third film and the huge amount of money it brings in. Its fine, but let's not call it anything other than what it is because other than the basic outline this film bears little resemblance to its source material and relies too much on its flash, not enough on its characters. Unless the 3rd film is just absolutely incredible these will cower in the shadow of the LotR trilogy.

For those who don't open the spoiler box I'll go ahead and post something basic here.

The bare bones of The Hobbit are there, but its fan fiction at this point. If you're a purist you'll hate this, if you're looking for consistency or more character work than we got in the first film you might like parts of it, but if you're a casual film-goer who is looking for a popcorn flick this will be a fun way to kill a Saturday afternoon. Its not a great film, its not a bad film, its watchable._________________Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.

I've yet to see The Hobbit, but did anyone see Frozen? Being a Disney buff, I adored it._________________All things die, Anakin Skywalker, even stars burn out.

So this is how liberty dies....with thunderous applause.

Those without swords can still die upon them

The world is a mess and I just need to rule it.

Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 11:28 pm

Message

Dog-Poop_WalkerMaster

Joined: 28 Jan 2012Posts: 1080Location: Of Puppets

So they kinda tried to work in the Nim storyline from Simalrillian?_________________The absurd man thus catches sight of a burning and frigid, transparent and limited universe in which nothing is possible but everything is given, and beyond which all is collapse and nothingness. He can then decide to accept such a universe and draw from it his strength, his refusal to hope, and the unyielding evidence of a life without consolation.

Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:54 pm

Message

Caedus_16Master

Joined: 15 Apr 2008Posts: 4770Location: Korriban

Dog-Poop_Walker wrote:

So they kinda tried to work in the Nim storyline from Simalrillian?

Nah, not really. Nim is just a location where nothing like what they did in the film happened (its also a wonderful story about mice if anyone has read that).

Its not The Hobbit anymore, its just an action film. There's a hobbit and some dwarves and elves and even a dragon, but it only goes with the basic bones while adding padding._________________Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.